Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 1575
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
H.S.Bedi and A.S.Garg JJ.
Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd., New Delhi
Versus
P.O., Labour Court, Chandigarh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 445 of 1998,
Decided On : DECEMBER 23, 1999
The court held that an employee who knowingly furnishes false information in order to obtain a job and who commits serious lapses in the performance of his duties can be justifiably dismissed from service, even if he is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:
WORKMAN - SALESMAN - DEFINITION - ACT AND OMISSION - FURNISHING WRONG INFORMATION - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - SECTION 11-A OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - LOSS OF FAITH - MISCONDUCT - REINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent No.2, employed as a Salesman by the appellant company, was found to have furnished false information regarding his past experience and committed irregularities in the sale of fertilizer. He was dismissed from service, but the Labour Court reinstated him with 50% backwages. The management challenged the award, and the respondent filed a cross-objection seeking full back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent was a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act were not applicable in this case. The court found that the respondent had knowingly furnished false information in order to obtain the job and that he had committed serious lapses in the sale of Urea. The court held that the management was justified in terminating the respondent's services.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act were applicable in this case? 3. Whether the management was justified in terminating the respondent's services?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, relying on the fact that his job involved both manual and clerical work. The court distinguished the respondent's case from cases where the employees were purely supervisory or managerial in nature. 2. The court held that the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act were not applicable in this case because the respondent's misconduct was serious and could not be ignored. The court found that the respondent had knowingly furnished false information in order to obtain the job and that he had committed serious lapses in the sale of Urea. 3. The court held that the management was justified in terminating the respondent's services because the respondent's misconduct had resulted in a loss of faith between the parties.
Final Decision: The court allowed the management's appeal and set aside the order of the Labour Court and the Single Judge. The court restored the termination of the respondent's services and dismissed the respondent's cross-objection.
A. S. GARG, J.
1. This order will dispose of L. P. A. No.445 of 1998 and Cross- Objection No.1 of 1998, arising out of common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, dated July 14, 1998.
2. When there is a controversy relating to workman, the management would seldom offer a sympathetical shoulder for him to lean upon, especially, when the question arises as to the loss of faith in him. Respondent No.2 J. C. Arora was employed on daily wages with the indian Farmers Fertilizers Company Limited appellant with effect from April 4, 1997 as a salesman. He was supposed to work as salesman Fertilizers to various agriculturists and others. There was an advertisement annexure G dated April 5, 1978 inviting applications for the post of Salesman in the department of the appellant. The minimum qualification required was that a candidate had to be a matriculate with two years experience as Salesman. The last date for receipt of the applications was April 14, 1978 i. e. within ten days of the publication of the advertisement. Respondent No.2 made an application for this post on July 22, 1978.
3. Respondent No.2 in his application annexure H dated July 22, 1978 had mentioned that he was matriculate and had experience of having worked from September 1, 1969 to december 1, 1972 i. e. for three years and three months with Ram Raj Agricultural co-operative Society Limited, Member, district Muzzafarnagar (U. P.) as a Salesman at a salary of Rs.250.00 per mensem and his services were terminated ultimately as no longer required. Another experience was from december 1, 1975 to September 27, 1976 for nine months 26 days in Haryana Warehousing corporation, Ganaur as Accounts Clerk-cum-Godown-Keeper. Similarly, it was mentioned that his services were terminated as no longer required. These facts and circumstances were confirmed in the attestation form Annexure I dated April 14, 1979 by respondent. It was also referred that he did not earn any disqualification like the prosecution or any other penalty during his previous service. He was selected for one of the posts and he started working as such and his services were regularised on April 11, 1979. During his tenure with the appellant he was transferred from Sangrur Centre to Jagadhari, where he joined on June 6, 1990. At that place he committed some irregularity by selling the fertilizer at an unrevised rate despite the revision of rates.
4. It also transpired that the experience which he had mentioned to have attained by him in his application form as well as in the attestation form were wrong. It also came to light that vide Annexure K, respondent No.2 workman worked as Poster in the Office of senior Superintendent Railway Mail Service where he tendered his resignation on March 22, 1972. In that department he remained under suspension from November 3, 1970 to november 25, 1979. He was placed under suspension for using abusive language and showed disrespect and exhibited indiscipline and it was, therefore, for that reason that his services were terminated. It also came out to be a fact that he also worked as a Messenger in the Food Corporation of India and he remained absent. He failed to produce medical certificate though his period of absence was being treated to be that of leave on medical ground vide annexure L. Still in another document annexure H it is mentioned that he also worked as Godown keeper with the Warehousing corporation and he was relieved of his duties within the probation period in 1976 as his conduct was not found satisfactory. So, wherever he worked before joining this service, his conduct was reprehensible.
5. So looking to all these circumstances the management issued a charge-sheet in the following terms :-
1) The retail sale price of the chemical fertilizer, namely Urea and NPK had been increased by the Government of India with effect from June 8, 1980 and this was announced in the morning news bulletin of a. I. R. at 8.00 A. M. on June 8, 1980 (Sunday ). In spite
